Lord's Supper/The Bread of Life/The living water

Subjects; Lord's Supper/The Bread of Life/The living water:I would like to offer my opinion, my belief, on the three subjects listed above. *** THE LORD'S SUPPER;Many people teach that we are commanded to perform the Lord's Supper as a ceremony and ritual "in order to be saved." That by doing this they can assure their salvation. Some believe that the bread and drink actually become the body and blood of Christ. --- But what do the scriptures really say?1 Cor 11:20-27 . . (NIV)20 When you come together, it is not the Lord's Supper you eat,21 for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.22 Don't you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME." (caps are mine)25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; DO THIS, WHENEVER YOU DRINK IT, IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME." (caps are mine)26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.This message from Paul presents what Jesus said in three of the first four books of the New Testament. In Matthew, and Mark Jesus did not say "do this in remembrance of me." The event was just recorded. This statement by Jesus is only found in Luke. However, since they are the same story told by different Apostles we must conclude that it is the same event. It was also recorded by Paul in1 Cor 11:23-26. NKJV23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread;24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me."25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. Matt 26:26-28 . . (NIV)26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.Mark 14:22-25 . . (NIV)22 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take it; this is my body."23 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it.24 "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," he said to them.25 "I tell you the truth, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it anew in the kingdom of God."Luke 22:15-20 . . (NIV)15 And he said to them, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God."17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, "Take this and divide it among you.18 For I tell you I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes."19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME." (CAPS ARE MINE)20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.John did not mention this event but instead tells about Christ humbling Himself and washing the feet of the disciples.John 13:1-5 . . (NIV)1 It was just before the Passover Feast. Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now showed them the full extent of his love.2 The evening meal was being served, and the devil had already prompted Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray Jesus.3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;4 so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist.5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.*** Summation of the Lord's SupperJesus told His disciples to "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" in Luke 22:15-20 and Paul mentions "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME" in 1 Cor 11:20-27.In Matt 26:26-28 and Mark 14:22-25 there is no mention of "DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME."In John 13 there is no mention of breaking bread or drinking wine. If this ceremony is necessary for salvation, as some would have us to believe, then why did John leave it out? After all, it was John who wrote what Jesus said in John 6 that men use to tie with what Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote about the last supper.When we do this ceremony we are doing it in REMEMBRANCE of His last supper on earth and in REMEMBRANCE that he sacrificed His body and shed His blood for us. We do this out of respect, not as a legal requirement for salvation.We can do this in the church or in the home at the supper table with our families and friends. We can do this anywhere. It shows to the world that we remember our savior, Jesus Christ. It is in the heart that we remember Him.*** THE BREAD OF LIFE GIVEN BY GOD;How do we really eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood? It is in a man's heart that this occurs. We do it when we place our faith (trust) in His sacrifice on the cross (John 6:35 below). But some believe that the bread and drink given by the Church actually becomes Christ's body and blood. I do not believe this any more than I can believe that the living water given by Christ is the water in a lake or river becoming living water.John 6:32-65 . . (NIV)32 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."34 "Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread."*** 35 Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.In verse 35 we are told how we get this bread from heaven; we go to Him and place our belief (faith/trust) in Him and he will give it to us.36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away.38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.40 For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."41 At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."42 They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"43 "Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered.44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.45 It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from Him comes to me.46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.47 I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.48 I am the bread of life.49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died.50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."Let me take a break at this point in order to point to what Jesus said in verse 51 above. If a person eating physical bread will live forever, why is it that many claim you have to do it over and over again in order to live forever? If you have to do it more than once then physical bread doesn't do what Jesus claimed.52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"53 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever."59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you?62 What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!NOTE: Key verse 6363 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.65 He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."*** JESUS GIVES US LIVING WATER WHEN WE COME TO HIM:John 4:10-14 . . (NIV)10 Jesus answered her, "If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water."11 "Sir," the woman said, "you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water?12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?"NOTE: Key verses 13 and 14 and John 7:38-3913 Jesus answered, "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again,14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life."John 7:38-39 . . (NIV)38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.The living water represents the Holy Spirit and He is given by God alone. It is the new birth (born again of the spirit). He has said that the water he has given us/me is a spring of water welling up to eternal life. I completely believe and trust in this promise Jesus has made to me in these scriptures.Richard

(winsome;51150)
Richard, I think we have to start with what happened at the Last Supper.Jesus said “this is my body” (Mt 26:26, Mk 14:22, Lk 22:19, 1Cor 11:24).It is a simple statement, as far as I know the same in all translations. But what did Jesus mean by “this is my body”? This is a contentious point among Christians. Did Jesus mean that the bread was symbolic of his body, or in some mysterious really was his body?Let us leave aside the how (transubstantiation, consubstantiation etc.) and concentrate on the is.In each case (Mt, Mk, Lk & Paul) the wording of the whole context of that statement is almost identical and consists of four actions: Taking breadBlessing itBreaking itGiving it with the words “this is my body”It was a very significant event to the disciples. Acts records “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.” (Acts 2:42)I believe that Jesus meant exactly what he saidHe had said previously “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.” (Jn 6: 53-57)Jesus kept repeating the point about eating his flesh and I can’t see that leaves any doubt that he was not talking symbolically. When many disciples (not just the Jews who opposed him) could not take this because they understood him literally, does Jesus call them back and say “Hey, it was only figurative. I didn’t mean it literally”? No he doesn’t. He turns to the twelve and says “Do you also want to leave?” This is a crunch point There is no compromise in this. Jesus is saying I meant what I said. Do you believe in me?The apostles are confused and Peter answers “Lord, to whom can we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.” Jesus has just told them that they must eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. Now Peter says you have the words of eternal life. So he is accepting that he has to eat Jesus’ flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life because Jesus has said it and Jesus is the Holy One of God, even though he does not understand how this can happen without there being some sort of horrible cannibalistic ritual. It appears that Jesus does not enlighten them at that time, but in fact he does because he has said to them: “It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” (Jn 6:63). What does he mean by this?He is saying that what I have said to you is true (about eating his flesh and drinking his blood), and are life giving. But if you look at my words just with the flesh you will only see the physical dimension of what I am saying. This becomes clear at the Last Supper when he says “This is my body”. The appearance did not change and if you looked at the bread with the flesh you would only see bread.Consider the disciples at Emmaus. They had walked with Jesus on the road but did not recognise him with the flesh (although as they later said their hearts had burned within them). But then Luke records“When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.” (Lk 24:30-31)Their eyes were opened and they recognised him They stopped looking with the flesh and recognised him in the broken bread.It’s the same thing that Paul was speaking about when he said “For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.” (1 Cor 11:29)In every culture sharing a meal is a special way of sharing a bond and deepening a relationship. Jesus says “Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me.” The Eucharist is a meal above all other meals. He gives himself as our food and we are transformed by him. Paul says “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord”.(1 Cor 11:27).”He warns not against abusing a symbol but abusing the very body and blood of our Saviourwinsome
If the bread you break and eat will make you live forever then why do you have to do it more than once. Once would be enough wouldn't it? Or does it just make you live for a short time and then you must do it again? I stand by the OP.Richard

(marksman;51609)
WHY THE "LORD'S TABLE" IS A MEAL. "DO THIS" IS A ONCE OFF, NOT A CONTINUOUS THING At university (secular) I took a unit called “Jesus in the gospels”. My lecturer and tutor was the head of the department, an Anglican Minister and a very godly man who was not into “proving anything”. He was more concerned that we should learn the original as opposed to the translated version. Part of the course was studying the language of the Gospels and its construction. I found this fascinating as I now teach English to high school students and do a lot of writing my self. I write a lot of letters to the media under various names. I have been told by friends that I can sign myself anyway I like but it is obvious who the author is because of the style of writing I use.Our mentor at uni said the same thing. That each writer has a style, so it does not take much to work out if a person wrote a particular thing. The other aspect that he taught us is that each statement in scripture has to be read in the context of the whole. The purpose of the Passover meal was to celebrate the Jews deliverance from Egypt and to prepare for the coming messiah who was going to deliver them again from the oppression of the Roman Empire or so they thought. At the Passover meal, which was a Jewish feast, or as it is often referred to the last supper by Christians, Jesus was saying you don’t need to keep looking for your messiah, he is here and it is me.I saw a video produced by unregenerate Jews to explain the Passover meal and the significance of each part. Part of the rituals was to provide an empty seat in case the messiah turned up and to go outside and look to see if he was coming.If Jesus said the Messiah was here and it is me, why would he tell them to keep meeting once a year to wait for the messiah or as we have made it once a week or more. It is totally illogical and in fact says, Jesus we don’t accept what you said. Just imagine the Jewish Christians celebrating the Passover meal and leaving a chair empty for the messiah who had yet to come. If the Jews had accepted Jesus as the messiah, they would not keep on having a Passover meal every week because they would not need to. Even if they met to celebrate the coming of the messiah in their terms, it would have been only once a year on the anniversary of when it happened as that is the pattern for their feasts. They certainly would not have celebrated every week or every day. Bearing in mind that the New Testament church was originally a sect of the Jewish faith, it would have been illogical to celebrate a feast every week as they never celebrated any feast every week. Being “Christ Ones” who were Jews that were a member of “The Way” as the Jesus sect was known, they would have kept to the traditional feasts as they came around once a year.The difference for them was a Passover feast where they were not celebrating a coming messiah; they were celebrating a messiah that had come. For them, it would have still only been once a year. A church that I was part of in England did just that. In October every year (the month when Jesus was born) the church came together for a Passover feast to celebrate the fact that the messiah had come. I went to one of them and it was a real feast. This is all apart from the fact that the meaning of the word ‘do’ in “do this in remembrance of me” means in the Greek a "single act" not a continuous one. Like me saying to my son, go and clean the car which means I am saying to go and clean the car now, not go and clean the car every Sunday.The Greek goes on to say by implication to execute or accomplish a single act. From this we have to deduce that Jesus told no one to perpetuate the Passover meal as a remembrance of him. The Greek word is "poieo" meaning once and apparently there is another Greek word that is used if you are telling someone to keep doing what you are telling them to do.You will note that John doesn’t even mention the last supper. In Matthew and Mark there is no mention of “do this in remembrance of me”. It only appears in Luke and I was taught that you should never base a doctrine on the basis of one verse of scripture. That is standard practice for all aspects of doctrine. To indicate that some things have been added after the original text was written, it was always read as “take eat, this is my body which is broken for you”. In all current versions this has been changed because it is obvious that Jesus body was not broken, it was pierced. He had died before he was taken down from the cross because he said “no one takes my life from me, I give it up”. The two crucified with him had their bodies broken as the norm was that if a person was still alive when they were to be taken down from the cross, they broke their legs which brought on a quick death. This is an example where the text was changed later by another writer who wanted to impose a particular idea onto the church or they misunderstood the original Greek translation. Therefore Jesus would not have told them to continue something that ended with his death and resurrection because his resurrection heralded in a new covenant with his people that was expressed with an internal lordship under grace not an external one under the law. To continue a meal in the new covenant church that was an expression of the law would be illogical as we are under a new covenant, not under a new covenant with parts of the old thrown in if it suits our theology.Finally those that use Corinthians to support their theory for weekly or daily communion (as is the case in the Catholic Church) have not read it properly. In I Cor 11 v 20 Paul says “when you come together IT IS NOT the Lord’s supper that you eat”. Why wasn’t it the Lord’s Supper? See verse 21. Because they were eating their food without waiting for anyone else. Food in the Greek in this and other passages means “meat”. Therefore what is the “Lord’s Supper?” Very simple, it is coming together with other members of the body of Christ, bringing food with you, putting it on a communal table and waiting till everyone is there so that everyone, including widows, orphans, the needy, the oppressed and slaves, who probably could not contribute food to the meal can equally enjoy the food provided (see v 33). Waiting for everyone to arrive and sharing your food with everyone makes it the Lord’s Supper. To not wait and not share means that it is not the Lord’s Supper. There is a line of thought expressed by many people that the greatest remembrance to the death and resurrection of Jesus is the gathering of his people together as an expression of the body of Christ. There is nothing in scripture to suggest that the Lord’s Supper consisted of a sip of wine and a small piece of a biscuit. The church history books indicate that the communion ritual that we know did not become part of the church until the 4th century, when Constantine the Roman Emperor made Christianity the state religion. For three centuries they had tried to control Christianity by persecution which only served to make it more popular and powerful. Having failed that way they decided to legalise it as a way of controlling it. When they did this, official clergy were introduced as a special class to control the people.One thing that came out of this is that the church said only priests could conduct the Eucharist, making the priest special and denying the priesthood of all believers. Added to that was the injunction that if you wanted salvation you had to attend mass which denied salvation by grace alone.Prior to this, the “agape’ meal was breakfast. Later it became an evening meal, bearing in mind the word “bread” in scripture in many cases means “meat” and then later when it became the official religion it became a religious ritual devoid of all purpose and meaning other than to reinforce the hold of the clergy over the laity. This was confirmed for me by my lecturer and tutor at uni. He was an Anglican priest and I asked him the question “was the Eucharist part of the new testament church?” he said definitely no, the “agape” meal was dispensed with and replaced with the “Eucharist” by the leaders of the official state religion in the third or fourth century. One of the most disappointing things about Christianity is its insistence on the Catholic mass form of the Lord’s Supper introduced by an apostate church which denies the church the opportunity to use the greatest expression of Christendom, the “agape” or communal meal which was an expression of equality and love.In the days of the New Testament church there were two classes, the rich and the poor. The rich generally didn’t give a damn about the poor and coupled with that there was no such thing as welfare. If a woman lost her husband she was thrown onto any charity that she could find which very often wasn’t much.Outside of the church, the rich would have nothing to do with the poor. The “agape” or communal meal was significant because it meant that everyone in the church was equal before God and others regardless of their financial, cultural or social class or standing in life. All were entitled to eat regardless and all were welcome to the meal regardless. This meal was the main reason that the church got the accolade “how much they love one another”. As Paul said there is no male or female, bond or free etc as we are all one in Christ Jesus. The “agape’ meal was something they ate together on a daily basis in their homes to ensure that everyone was taken care of (Acts 2v42-47). That was not difficult to understand as the believers were very generous to each other. If they had two horses, two coats, two houses etc. they either gave one to someone who did not have one or sold it and gave the money to the church leadership to give to the poor. Because of government welfare, we do not need to look after each other, sad to say. When you look at scripture dispassionately and delve into New Testament church history and the history of the church generally, there is no support for the Lord’s Supper as we know it today. The only one recognised and practiced by the church that changed the world was the “agape” communal meal which was a meal that was a meal with bread, fruits, meat, drink and delicacies. If you care to read books that are dealing with a new wave of the spirit in the church today, you will find that in many instances the traditional Lord’s Supper has been replaced with a communal “agape” meal. More and more, people are moving back into the home to express their faith and central to that is a common meal shared with everyone who attends. Hospitality was very important in New Testament times. If you had visitors, asking them to share your meal with you was standard practice. They always made a meal of the meal. Once they sat down together and started to eat, they would spend the rest of the evening sat at the table eating, nibbling, drinking and conversing. They would leave the table when they were ready to leave and go home. The New Testament Church continued this practice because they were Jews and this would be the norm with their guests. To have the ritual that we call the Lord’s Supper like we do today would make no sense at all to them plus it would be an insult to their guests to offer them what we have at communion. Offering their guests a meal was their way of honouring them. The meal started with the host taking a loaf and breaking it and giving each person a piece of it to eat with their meal. Some people have said “we live in a different time and environment so we have to do things differently”. I disagree from two perspectives. The scriptures say that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. If that is the case, why isn’t New Testament practice relevant for today? The second is the fact that we live in different times is all the more reason to show the world that we are different, and are part of a different kingdom. One that transcends the cares and problems of the man made world and offers an alternative. In other words we need to live the kingdom of God and show its power to redeem, restore and revive. The way that the New Testament church did, changing the world they lived in.When we rationalize scripture to support what we are doing or want to happen, we often get into a pattern of expression that leads so far away from the truth that the truth becomes what we want to believe. When the spirit blows on the church, it then becomes very difficult to embrace anything that does not conform to our way of thinking and prevents Him from taking us to where we have not gone before.
Excellant post. I agree with what you have said.Richard